Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1208 (PAT)

Rakesh Tiwari v. State of Bihar

2014-12-08

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER This is an application seeking quashing of the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Kaimur (Bhabhua) dated 12.05.2010 passed in Appeal No. 201/2009 whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected the petitioners’ claim for his continuance as Shiksha Mitra as on 01.07.2006 and his deemed absorption as Panchayat Teacher under Rule 20(iii) of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. 2. This is not in dispute that in March 2003, petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra for Gram Panchayat Raj Akorhi Mela under the District of Kaimur for the period of 11 months. The said period was subsequently extended for another 11 months. Before the petitioner could be granted further extension on the post of Shiksha Mitra, as the State Government decided to enhance the minimum qualification for appointment as Shiksha Mitra from matriculation to intermediate, with effect from 11.08.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the qualification of Intermediate. No document has been brought on record that for any reason the petitioner’s term as Shiksha Mitra was extended for further period. It is a different matter that such extension could not have been granted in view of the State Government decision dated 11.08.2004 to enhance the qualification. 3. With effect from 2006, Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force. By virtue of the Rules post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood abolished and all circulars/guidelines relating to appointment etc. of Shiksha Mitra stood repealed. The persons who were continuing as Shiksha Mitra as on 01.07.2006 were deemed to have been absorbed as Panchayat Teachers by operation of Rule 20 (iii) of 2006 Rules. 4. This is not in dispute that the petitioner was not working as Shiksha Mitra as on 01.07.2006 as he did not have the intermediate qualification. 5. From the pleadings in the writ application it appears that District Magistrate, Kaimur in pursuance of letter No. 371 dated 15.05.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Kaimur, Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat by specific order dated 15.05.2006 refused to grant extension to the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra. However, while passing the order the Mukhiya used the word “Niyojan rad karte hue”. 6. Mr. However, while passing the order the Mukhiya used the word “Niyojan rad karte hue”. 6. Mr. Kamal Narayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended with regard to the said order dated 15.05.2005 (Annexure-6) that the District Magistrate went beyond his jurisdiction by asking the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat to cancel petitioner’s appointment. He submits that aggrieved by said order dated 15.05.2005 the petitioner had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 9165 of 2007. However, during the pendency of the said writ application, an Appellate Tribunal came to be constituted under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules by an order dated 27.10.2007 and this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. The petitioner accordingly approached the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Kaimur who passed the order impugned dated 15.05.2010 as mentioned above. 7. Mr. Choubey has also relied upon a Circular dated 04.07.2008 issued by the State Government of Bihar in compliance of the order of this Court passed in Case of Kishori Prasad Vs. State of Bihar in L.P.A. No. 940 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008. He submits that the said Circular of the State Government requires that if a candidate acquires qualification of Intermediate within 33 month from the date of his initial appointment, he will be absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. He submits that the petitioner has acquired Intermediate qualification and as a matter of fact appeared in the examination within said 33 months, but the result was published after 33 months and, therefore, he should have been taken back as Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak. 8. The submission made by Mr. Choubey is not acceptable to this Court in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Kalpana Rani Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2014(2) P.L.J.R. 665 and Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011(4) P.L.J.R. 297 . 9. In reply to the query as to why he was not allowed to continue after March, 2005 as Shiksha Mitra. It is stated that he petitioner did not approach the proper authorities before approaching this Court in the year 2007. Mr. State of Bihar reported in 2011(4) P.L.J.R. 297 . 9. In reply to the query as to why he was not allowed to continue after March, 2005 as Shiksha Mitra. It is stated that he petitioner did not approach the proper authorities before approaching this Court in the year 2007. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that delay/lapses stood rectified in view of the order of this Court dated 27.10.2009 whereby the petitioner was given liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and, therefore, there is no question of delay and laches. 10. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 11 seems to be right in his submission relying upon paragraph No. 113 in the Full Bench judgment in case of Kalpana Rani (supra) that the petitioner approached this Court only after coming into force 2006 Rules which made the post of Panchayat Teachers much lucrative and provided absorption of Shiksha Mitra as Panchayat Teacher by operation of Rule 20(iii) of 2006. 11. I do not find any merit in the application and is accordingly dismissed.